LAUREL HEIGHTS/JORDAN PARK TRAFFIC CALMING PROJECT DECEMBER 2012

LAUREL HEIGHTS/JORDAN PARK TRAFFIC CALMING PROJECT DECEMBER 2012 PREPARED BY: SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL TRANSPORTATION AGENCY TRAFFIC CALMING PROGRAM 1 SOUTH VAN NESS AVENUE SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94103 Preparation of this report was made possible entirely by the San Francisco County Transportation Authority through a grant of Proposition K Local Transportation Sales Tax Funds

TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1: Executive Summary... 4 Recommended Locations... 5 Table 1: Recommended Locations for Traffic Calming... 5 Table 2: Recommended Traffic Calming Measures... 5 Speeding... 6 Chapter 2: Background and Community Input... 8 Goals and Objectives... 8 Table 3: Project Objectives and Performance Measures... 8 Table 4: Approach to Neighborhood Consensus... 9 Chapter 3: Recommended Implementation Plan and Phasing... 10 Phase 1A (Early Implementation Funding)... 10 Phase 1... 10 Phase 2... 11 Phase 3... 11 Table 5: Funding Plan*... 12 CHAPTER 4: RECOMMENDED FUNDING SOURCES... 13 Sales Tax Funds (Proposition K)... 13 Safe Routes to School Grant Programs (SR2S, Federal and State)... 13 Safe Routes to Transit Grants (SR2T)... 13 Transportation Fund for Clean Air (TFCA) Grants... 14 Regional Bicycle and Pedestrian Program (RBPP) Grants Transportation for Livable Communities (TLC) Grants... 14 Other Potential Funding Sources... 15 Appendix A: Traffic Calming Plan By Phase... 16 Proposed Improvements Phase 1A... 16 Proposed Improvements Phase 1... 17 Proposed Improvements Phase 2... 18 Proposed Improvements Phase 3... 19 December 2012 Page 2 of 35

Appendix B: Collected Traffic Data... 20 Average Daily Traffic Map... 20 85 th Percentile Speed Map... 21 All Reported Collisions, 2005 2010 Map... 22 Street Grade Map... 23 Bicycle Volume Map... 24 Truck Volume Map... 25 Van Volume Map... 26 Appendix C: Traffic Calming Toolbox Measures... 27 Speed Hump... 27 Sidewalk Bulb-out... 28 Median Islands... 30 Appendix D: Traffic Calming Project Timeline and Process... 33 Traffic Calming Request... 33 Planning Stage of Project (6 12 months for an area-wide project)... 33 Start Construction Stage, Phase 1 of Project (6 12 months)... 33 Start Subsequent Stages of Construction Phases... 33 Appendix E: Meeting Notices/Postcards... 34 Project Kickoff Meeting Flyer Front:... 34 Project Kickoff meeting Flyer Back:... 34 Project Wrap-Up Meeting Flyer Front:... 35 Project Wrap-Up Meeting Flyer Back:... 35 December 2012 Page 3 of 35

CHAPTER 1: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This document presents a summary of community input, data collection and data analysis that have been compiled for this project. Drawing from these analyses, it also presents detailed, preliminary recommendations for addressing traffic calming issues throughout the Laurel Heights/Jordan Park study area. It draws from meetings with the community and key local stakeholders, including: The local community The Laurel Heights Improvements Association Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA) Department of Public Works (DPW) Fire Department Police Department The project area encompasses parts of two neighborhoods, Laurel Heights and Jordan Park. The area is bounded by Geary Blvd to the south, Arguello Blvd to the west, California St to the north, and Masonic Ave to the east. A portion of the southwestern corner of the Jordan Park neighborhood, including the streets of Palm Ave, Commonwealth Ave, Jordan Ave, and Parker Ave, between Euclid Ave and Geary Blvd, are not part of this areawide project. These streets received traffic calming as part of a separate, earlier project. The project area is entirely residential, and does not include the arterial streets bounding the project area. While there are no arterial streets intersecting the project area, both Euclid and Parker avenues function as collector streets and have relatively high traffic volumes. There are no Muni routes or bicycle routes through the project area. The western half of the project area is relatively flat, with the streets on the eastern half having grades of up to ten percent. The neighborhood has many wide streets and long blocks, and is bounded by signalized arterials, all of which can contribute to speeding. Speed humps and traffic islands are proposed for several locations to discourage speeding. Bicycle lanes and other striping treatments are proposed for Euclid Ave in order to visually narrow the roadway to encourage speed limit compliance. Traffic circles are proposed for two locations along Euclid, which will discourage prohibited heavy vehicles from using neighborhood streets, as well as adding aesthetic improvements to the neighborhood. December 2012 Page 4 of 35

RECOMMENDED LOCATIONS Based on the existing conditions data gathered in the Laurel Heights/Jordan Park study area, the following are recommended locations for traffic calming measures, along with the factors influencing the selection of each location. In order for a street to qualify for a traffic calming recommendation, there must be a quantifiable traffic problem such as speeding, high traffic volumes, cut-through traffic, reported collisions, or a major pedestrian generator where access needs improvement. The locations that met these criteria correspond with the streets identified through neighborhood input as having the most critical traffic problems. TABLE 1: RECOMMENDED LOCATIONS FOR TRAFFIC CALMING Location Limits Factor Palm Ave Euclid to California Speeding Jordan Ave Euclid to California Speeding Commonwealth Ave California St Speeding/Intersection with arterial Commonwealth Ave Euclid to California Speeding Parker Ave California St Speeding/Intersection with arterial Parker Ave Euclid to California Speeding Euclid Ave Parker Ave Restrict prohibited trucks Spruce St Geary to Euclid Speeding Euclid Ave Spruce St Pedestrian crossing distance Euclid Ave Heather Ave Pedestrian crossing distance Euclid Ave Iris Ave Pedestrian crossing distance Euclid Ave Iris to Manzanita Speeding Spruce St Laurel Village lot Pedestrian visibility Laurel St Laurel Village lot Pedestrian visibility Mayfair Dr Iris to Manzanita Speeding, pedestrian visibility Euclid Ave Collins St Restrict prohibited trucks, speeding Collins St Geary to Euclid Speeding Euclid Ave Laurel St Pedestrian crossing distance Laurel St Euclid to Mayfair Speeding Euclid Ave Arguello to Masonic Speeding TABLE 2: RECOMMENDED TRAFFIC CALMING MEASURES December 2012 Page 5 of 35

Location Traffic Calming Measure Impacts and Issues Palm Ave, Euclid to California Speed humps Some inconvenience to motorists Jordan Ave, Euclid to California Speed humps Some inconvenience to motorists Commonwealth Ave & California St Pedestrian island Turning clearance Commonwealth Ave, Euclid to California Speed humps Some inconvenience to motorists Parker Ave & California St Pedestrian island Turning clearance Parker Ave, Euclid to California Speed humps Some inconvenience to motorists Euclid Ave & Parker Ave Traffic circle Turning clearance Spruce St, Geary to Euclid Speed humps Some inconvenience to motorists Euclid Ave & Spruce St Pedestrian islands None Euclid Ave & Heather Ave Pedestrian islands None Euclid Ave & Iris Ave Pedestrian island None Euclid Ave, Iris to Manzanita Speed hump Some inconvenience to motorists Spruce St & Laurel Village lot High visibility crosswalk None Laurel St & Laurel Village lot High visibility crosswalk None Mayfair Dr, Iris to Manzanita Painted pedestrian islands None Euclid Ave & Collins St Traffic circle Turning clearance Collins St, Geary to Euclid Speed hump Some inconvenience to motorists Euclid Ave & Laurel St Pedestrian islands None Laurel St, Euclid to Mayfair Speed hump Some inconvenience to motorists Euclid Ave, Arguello to Masonic Bicycle lanes, restriping None SPEEDING The prima facie speed limit in residential or business districts is 25 MPH, whether it is posted or not. The 85th percentile speed statistic, which is the widely used standard for setting speed limits, is used as a guide in determining whether a street is a candidate for a speeding-related traffic calming measure. The 85th percentile speed is the maximum speed of the vast majority (85 percent) of drivers; or put another way, it is the speed at which 15 percent of vehicles exceed. Streets with an 85th percentile speed higher than 32 MPH are good candidates for a traffic calming measure. Streets with a 25 MPH speed limit and an 85th percentile speed between 30 and 32 MPH merit consideration, whereas speeds below 30 MPH do not warrant installation of a measure. For example, a residential street with an 85th percentile speed of 33 MPH, where 15 percent are driving over 33 MPH, would be recommended whereas another street with an 85th percentile speed of 27 MPH will likely not be recommended for a measure. December 2012 Page 6 of 35

The latter street, though technically over the speed limit, is typical of the level of compliance one can expect on a residential street and is unlikely to be affected significantly by any traffic calming measure. The width of the roadway and other street conditions are also considered in determining the extent of speeding. Cut-through problems can usually be identified by reviewing the daily traffic volumes on a street in relation to the grid and observing motorists use of the streets during field visit(s). Evidence of exhibition driving, including donuts, is also taken into consideration. December 2012 Page 7 of 35

CHAPTER 2: BACKGROUND AND COMMUNITY INPUT SFMTA planning staff worked from fall of 2011 to fall of 2012 to develop a comprehensive traffic calming plan for the Laurel Heights/Jordan Park project area. During the course of this study, the team completed the following tasks: Collected detailed traffic speed and volume data throughout the study area and compared it with historic data Created a Community Working Group with residents from different streets in the project area. Three Community Working Group meetings were held to discuss and prioritize locations and traffic calming treatments for the project Organized two neighborhood-wide community workshops GOALS AND OBJECTIVES As a result of all this data analysis and community input, the team was able to obtain consensus on a set of objectives and performance measures. TABLE 3: PROJECT OBJECTIVES AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES Objective Performance Measure Measurement Tools Reduce vehicle speeds to levels appropriate for residential streets Reduce the 85th percentile speed to below 30 MPH 24 hour speed and volume counts Improve pedestrian safety Shorten crossing distances Neighborhood perception Reduce prohibited truck traffic Make truck prohibited streets selfenforcing through geometric design 24 hour vehicle classification counts December 2012 Page 8 of 35

TABLE 4: APPROACH TO NEIGHBORHOOD CONSENSUS Task Goal Result Data collection Community Meeting #1 (9/23/2011) Data collection Community Working Group Meeting #1 (10/18/2011) Community Working Group Meeting #2 (2/7/2012) Attend standing neighborhood association meeting Community Working Group Meeting #3 (8/15/2012) Work with Community through Email and Telephone Conversations Community Meeting #2 (10/3/2012) Collect initial round of data Introduce traffic calming concepts; solicit comments identifying issues Collect additional speed/volume/vehicle classification data; field check locations Present primary data; identify priorities Present and receive feedback on draft traffic calming plan Present and receive feedback on draft traffic calming plan Finalize proposals and prioritization of traffic calming plan Continue receiving input and feedback on problem locations and draft traffic calming plan elements Present traffic calming plan Data shows speeds high enough to warrant traffic calming Comments identified specific problem areas Determined where measures such as speed humps and cushions, median islands, bulb-outs, red zones, etc. are physically possible Consensus achieved on priorities Prioritized elements of draft traffic calming plan and gauged community acceptance of specific elements Prioritized elements of draft traffic calming plan and gauged community acceptance of specific elements Final set of proposals and priorities for presentation to entire neighborhood Continued receiving input and feedback Much of design was well received by community. Additional requests can be handled in a location-specific project independent of this areawide proposal. December 2012 Page 9 of 35

CHAPTER 3: RECOMMENDED IMPLEMENTATION PLAN AND PHASING Two key issues determine the best phasing strategy for implementing traffic calming in the Laurel Heights/Jordan Park area: Recognizing that there is limited funding available, the most cost effective solutions should be implemented first, along with solutions for the most serious traffic safety problems. Recognizing that there may not be universal support or consensus among residents for any traffic calming project, low-cost temporary installations may be preferable over the short term to test certain ideas. For example, installing temporary choker islands can be done with glue down bollards and paint first, before the installation of more expensive and permanent concrete islands. To achieve these key points, the following phasing strategy is recommended: PHASE 1A (EARLY IMPLEMENTATION FUNDING) Phase 1A improvements will use funding already secured from Prop K grant for the Fiscal Year 2011/2012 Traffic Calming Implementation: Mayfair Dr Painted Pedestrian Islands. Painted islands and high visibility crosswalks will be installed on Mayfair Dr at the intersections of Iris and Manzanita avenues. Laurel Village Parking Lot High Visibility Crosswalks. High visibility crosswalks will be installed at the two parking lot driveways of Laurel Village. Collins St Edgelines. Edgelines will be striped on the northern section of the block of Collins St, between Euclid Ave and Geary Blvd. PHASE 1 Phase 1 improvements seek to address the worst speeding and pedestrian safety problems in the neighborhood in the most affordable manner. Projects include: Speed humps o Palm Ave, Euclid Ave to California St o Jordan Ave,, Euclid Ave to California St o Commonwealth Ave, Euclid Ave to California St o Parker Ave, Euclid Ave to California St o Spruce St, Geary Blvd to Euclid Ave o Collins St, Geary Blvd to Euclid Ave December 2012 Page 10 of 35

o Laurel St, Euclid Ave to Mayfair Dr Pedestrian islands o Euclid Ave at Iris Ave Euclid Ave restriping o Euclid Ave, from Arguello Blvd to Masonic Ave, will be restriped with bicycle lanes in each direction and narrower travel lanes. This will not remove any parking or change the lane configuration at any signalized intersections. PHASE 2 Speed hump o Euclid Ave, between Iris and Manzanita avenues o Mayfair Dr, between Iris and Manzanita avenues Pedestrian islands o Commonwealth Ave at California St o Parker Ave at California St o Euclid Ave at Spruce St o Euclid Ave at Laurel St PHASE 3 Traffic circles o Euclid and Parker avenues o Euclid Ave and Collins St Pedestrian Islands o Euclid Ave at Heather Ave December 2012 Page 11 of 35

TABLE 5: FUNDING PLAN* Phase Measure Construction Cost FY 12/13 FY 13/14 FY 14/15 FY 15/16 FY 16/17 Prop K Non- Prop K Total 1A Collins St Edgline Striping X $5,000 $5,000 1A Laurel Village Conti X-Walk X $2,500 $2,500 Upgrades 1A Mayfair Painted Ped Islands X $2,500 $2,500 Phase 1A Subtotal $10,000 $10,000 1 Laurel St Speed Hump X $7,100 $7,100 1 Collins St Speed Hump X $7,100 $7,100 1 Euclid @ Iris Ped Island X $24,000 $24,000 1 Euclid Bike Lanes/Restriping X $130,000 $130,000 1 Palm Ave Speed Humps X $11,000 $11,000 1 Jordan Ave Speed Humps X $11,000 $11,000 1 Commonwealth Ave Speed X $11,000 $11,000 Humps 1 Parker Ave Speed Humps X $11,000 $11,000 1 Spruce St Speed Humps X $11,000 $11,000 Phase 1 Subtotal $223,200 $223,200 2 Commonwealth @ California X $24,000 $24,000 Ped Island 2 Parker @ California Ped Island X $24,000 $24,000 2 Euclid @ Spruce Ped Islands X $24,000 $24,000 2 Euclid @ Laurel Ped Islands X $24,000 $24,000 2 Euclid Speed Hump X $7,100 $7,100 2 Mayfair Speed Hump X $7,100 $7,100 Phase 2 Subtotal $110,200 $110,200 3 Euclid @ Heather Ped Islands X $24,000 $24,000 3 Euclid @ Parker Traffic Circle X $35,000 $35,000 3 Euclid @ Collins Traffic Circle X $35,000 $35,000 Phase 3 Subtotal $94,000 $94,000 Total $437,400 *This funding plan represents a general estimate of typical costs of traffic calming measures at the time of publication of this report. Costs of specific measures may change once a detailed engineering design is made. December 2012 Page 12 of 35

CHAPTER 4: RECOMMENDED FUNDING SOURCES SALES TAX FUNDS (PROPOSITION K) Up to $70 M over the next 30 years is allocated for traffic calming projects, under the Proposition K Expenditure Plan. This equates to roughly $1.5 - $2M per year for planning, outreach, design and construction of traffic calming projects for the entire City. Prop K funds were used to develop this Plan. SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL GRANT PROGRAMS (SR2S, FEDERAL AND STATE) There are two parallel Safe Routes to School (SR2S) grant programs (Federal and State) intended to improve conditions for children to safely walk and bicycle to school. Physical improvements must be located within a two-mile radius of a school. Federal funds are restricted to kindergarten through eighth grade schools, while State funds may also be spent to improve conditions around high schools. Applications that have the best chance of being selected for funding are those that are developed with community participation and incorporate key elements referred to as the five E s education, encouragement, engineering, enforcement and evaluation. All else being equal, applications are stronger for areas that have a documented collision history. In the past, the SFMTA has been successful in securing both State and Federal SR2S grants for a number of elementary and middle schools in the City including Fairmount, Flynn, Mann, Peabody, Marshall, Gordon Lau, San Francisco Community, Monroe, Buena Vista, and Claremont Schools. Historically grant amounts have been on the order of $200,000 to $500,000, but the current funding limit is $1,000,000 for construction projects. SAFE ROUTES TO TRANSIT GRANTS (SR2T) The $22.5 million Safe Routes to Transit (SR2T) Program received Bay Area voter approval in March 2004 through Regional Measure 2, the $1 bridge toll increase for transit. Of the SR2T funds, $20 million will be allocated on a competitive grant basis. To be eligible, projects must have a bridge nexus, that is, reduce congestion on one or more state toll bridges by facilitating walking or bicycling to transit services or City CarShare pods. SR2T funds can be used for: Secure bicycle storage at transit stations/stops/pods Safety enhancements for ped/bike station access to transit stations/stops/pods Removal of ped/bike barriers near transit stations System-wide transit enhancements to accommodate bicyclists or pedestrians December 2012 Page 13 of 35

TRANSPORTATION FUND FOR CLEAN AIR (TFCA) GRANTS The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) administers TFCA funds. Funds are generated from a $4 surcharge on the vehicle registration fee. TFCA funds are distributed to public agencies to implement projects to reduce air pollution from motor vehicles in accordance with the requirements of State law and BAAQMD's Bay Area 2000 Clean Air Plan (CA) and the 2001 Ozone Attainment Plan. Eligible projects include: Arterial Management: Implementation and maintenance of local arterial traffic management, including, but not limited to, signal timing, transit signal preemption, bus stop relocation and "smart streets." Bicycle Projects: Implementation of bicycle facility improvement projects that are included in an adopted countywide bicycle plan or congestion management program. Smart Growth/Traffic Calming: The design and construction by local public agencies of physical improvements that support development projects that achieve motor vehicle emission reductions. Projects are usually expected to be completed in 2 years. The minimum grant for a single project is on the order of $10,000 and the maximum grant is $1.5 million for public agencies. Each application will be screened for meeting the Air District's policies and the costeffectiveness threshold. Only projects with a cost-effectiveness ratio of less than $90,000 per ton of reduced emissions will be considered for funding. The SFMTA has secured TFCA funds for numerous bicycle lane striping projects in the past. REGIONAL BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PROGRAM (RBPP) GRANTS TRANSPORTATION FOR LIVABLE COMMUNITIES (TLC) GRANTS MTC's RBPP funds transportation infrastructure improvements to pedestrian and bicycle facilities. The key objective of this program is to encourage convenient and safe pedestrian and bicycle trips to shift trips to non-motorized modes to improve air quality. Typical RBPP capital projects include new or improved pedestrian facilities at schools, transit stations, or regional activity centers; bicycle facilities will serve schools, transit stations or be included in the Regional Bicycle network. Project activities eligible for TLC Capital funding include bicycle and pedestrian paths and bridges; on-street bike lanes; pedestrian plazas; pedestrian street crossings; streetscaping such as median landscaping, street trees, lighting, furniture; traffic calming design features such as pedestrian bulb-outs or transit bulbs; transit stop amenities; way-finding signage; and gateway December 2012 Page 14 of 35

features. While these discrete activities are eligible for funding, the TLC capital program is intended to fund projects that are well-designed, uses a variety of different design features, results in numerous community benefits, and is part of a community's broader revitalization and development efforts. The most recent funding cycle had a maximum grant award of $3 M and a minimum of $500,000 for TLC grants, and a total of $2.748M for RBPP. RBPP awards will require 11.47% of the total project cost, while TLC funds do not require local match. OTHER POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES Coordination with DPW Paving Projects December 2012 Page 15 of 35

APPENDIX A: TRAFFIC CALMING PLAN BY PHASE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS PHASE 1A December 2012 Page 16 of 35

PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS PHASE 1 December 2012 Page 17 of 35

PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS PHASE 2 December 2012 Page 18 of 35

PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS PHASE 3 December 2012 Page 19 of 35

APPENDIX B: COLLECTED TRAFFIC DATA AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC MAP December 2012 Page 20 of 35

85 TH PERCENTILE SPEED MAP December 2012 Page 21 of 35

ALL REPORTED COLLISIONS, 2005 2010 MAP December 2012 Page 22 of 35

STREET GRADE MAP December 2012 Page 23 of 35

BICYCLE VOLUME MAP December 2012 Page 24 of 35

TRUCK VOLUME MAP December 2012 Page 25 of 35

VAN VOLUME MAP December 2012 Page 26 of 35

APPENDIX C: TRAFFIC CALMING TOOLBOX MEASURES SPEED HUMP Speed Hump Speed Cushion What it is: Speed humps are asphalt mounds constructed on residential streets. They can be placed individually or in a series depending on the length of the street. Speed humps are usually spaced at least 150 feet from an intersection and apart from each other. Speed humps are typically 12 feet long and 3.5 inches high. Their vertical deflection encourages motorists to reduce speed. When they are used: The primary benefit of speed humps is speed control. Advantages: Effectively reduces vehicle speeds Does not require parking removal Can reduce vehicular volumes Easily tested on temporary basis Disadvantages: Slows emergency vehicles May increases noise near speed humps May divert traffic to parallel streets May not be esthetically pleasing Special Considerations: Vehicle speeds between humps have been shown to decrease by up to 25% Volumes may decrease if parallel route, without measures, is available December 2012 Page 27 of 35

Possible increase in traffic noise from braking an accelerating Highest noise may increase from buses and trucks Speed humps may reduce emergency vehicle response times Speed humps require advance warning signs and object marker at hump Difficult to construct precisely, unless prefabricated Cost: $6000-$7000 each SIDEWALK BULB-OUT Sidewalk Bulb-out Landscaped Bulb-out What it is: Sidewalk bulb-outs narrow the street by extending the curbs toward the center of the roadway or by building detached raised islands to allow for drainage. When they are used: Sidewalk bulb-outs are used to narrow the roadway and to create shorter pedestrian crossings. They also improve sight distance and influence driver behavior by changing the appearance of the street. Advantages: Better pedestrian visibility Shorter pedestrian crossing Can decrease vehicle speeds Opportunity for landscaping Disadvantages: December 2012 Page 28 of 35

Can require removal of parking Can create drainage issues Difficult for trucks to turn right Special Considerations: Curb extensions can be installed at intersections Curb extensions should not extend into bicycle lanes, where present Curb extensions at transit stops enhance service No noise or emergency service impacts May require landscape maintenance to preserve sight distances Cost: $50,000-$150,000 each December 2012 Page 29 of 35

MEDIAN ISLANDS Pedestrian Refuge Island Chicane Traffic Circle Traffic Choker What it is: Median islands are raised islands in the center of street that can be used to narrow lanes for speed control and/or be used for pedestrian refuges in the middle of the crosswalk. As a last resort, they can create a barrier to prohibit left-turns into or from a side street. Median islands come in different shapes and forms, each of which has its own name. They include medians, chokers, chicanes, circles and diverters. When they are used: Median islands are used on wide streets to lower travel speeds and/or used to provide a mid-point refuge area for crossing pedestrians. As a last resort, they can be used to prohibit left-turning movements. December 2012 Page 30 of 35

Advantages: Effectively reduces vehicle speeds Can reduce pedestrian crossing Opportunity for landscaping Low impact on emergency vehicles (chicane) Can reduce collision potential (choker) Can increase sight distance (choker) Better side street access than others (circle) Disadvantages: May require parking removal May impede certain movements such as driveway access, trucks and emergency vehicles May require additional right-of-way (chicane) Increased maintenance (chicane) May create drainage issues (chicane, choker) May be a hazard for bicyclists (choker) May divert traffic volumes (diverters) Special Considerations: Median islands, when used to block side street access, my divert traffic In this condition, they may impact emergency response times All forms of median islands may visually enhance the street through landscaping Any lane width reduction should result in at least 10 foot lanes. Bicyclists would rather avoid lane narrowing Driveway access needs to be considered Speeds generally reduced when street cross-section reduce significantly Emergency response agencies prefer medians and chokers over other median types Where right-of-way is limited, chicanes are not recommended When both approach volumes moderate, chicanes better than chokers. Parking may be significantly reduced with chokers and chicanes Chicanes and chokers may increase conflicts with bicycles Chicanes and circles have the least noise impact Chicanes and circles can be installed in a series, alone or in combination with each other Buses can maneuver around traffic circles at slow speeds December 2012 Page 31 of 35

All medians require more signs and pavement markings (especially circles) Traffic circles are less effective at T-intersections and offset intersections Costs: Chicane: $25,000-$60,000 each Choker: $10,000 - $45,000 each Median/diverter: $10,000-$75,000 (depending on size) Traffic circle: $25,000-$100,000 each December 2012 Page 32 of 35

APPENDIX D: TRAFFIC CALMING PROJECT TIMELINE AND PROCESS TRAFFIC CALMING REQUEST Resident submits a traffic calming application MTA evaluates whether traffic calming can address the problem(s) MTA accepts application as a project and informs applicant how the project ranks relative to other projects. Depending on how the project places in the ranking system, MTA submits request to fund planning stage of project MTA receives planning funds and starts the project PLANNING STAGE OF PROJECT (6 12 MONTHS FOR AN AREA-WIDE PROJECT) Initial Community Meeting Mail out survey of problems Community working group selected MTA staff works with working group to develop alternatives and phasing Community Meeting to present draft plan Refine draft plan Approve plan at a community meeting, or if not, more community meetings, consensus building Public Hearing Approve plan through Legislative Process ISCOTT, MTAB, Environmental Review START CONSTRUCTION STAGE, PHASE 1 OF PROJECT (6 12 MONTHS) MTA submits request to fund construction of Phase 1 elements from the approved plan MTA ballots households and holds a public hearing for the installation of certain traffic calming measures. MTA arranges for construction of approved measures MTA and the community monitor conditions for at least 3 months Mail out survey and feedback to determine implementation of Phase II elements START SUBSEQUENT STAGES OF CONSTRUCTION PHASES MTA submits request to fund construction of Phase 2 (next phases) Same steps as Construction Stage, Phase 1 December 2012 Page 33 of 35

APPENDIX E: MEETING NOTICES/POSTCARDS PROJECT KICKOFF MEETING FLYER FRONT: PROJECT KICKOFF MEETING FLYER BACK: December 2012 Page 34 of 35

PROJECT WRAP-UP MEETING FLYER FRONT: PROJECT WRAP-UP MEETING FLYER BACK: December 2012 Page 35 of 35